In this essay I will be defending Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument on `` A defence against Abortion``. In her argument she talks about how based on the situation a woman should be able to make a decision on her own whether she would want to keep the baby, or have an abortion, Thomson then stats that abortion should be legal, but only in some cases, she then stats her analogy. (Thomson, 1971, Page 48) “imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious
Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade supreme court case, Abortion has become a frequently discussed topic amongst people. Abortion is the intentional termination of pregnancy, typically it is done early in the pregnancy, but it has occasionally been done late term, though in those cases they are more for the safety of the mother. There are many different views on Abortion and the question of its morality, though there are three philosophers who able to eloquently express some of those views. Those philosophers
In this essay, I will hold that the strongest argument in defence of abortion was provided by Judith Jarvis Thompson. She argued that abortion is still morally permissible, regardless if one accepts the premise that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. In what follows, I agree that abortion is permissible in the ‘extreme case’ whereby the woman’s life is threatened by the foetus. Furthermore, I agree that abortion is permissible to prevent future pain and suffering to the child.
Moral Views on Abortion and Euthanasia The argument of the sanctity of life lies at the heart of all ethical debates on embryo experiments, abortion and euthanasia. In 1967, a nationwide debate was instigated in Britain, regarding whether abortion was a violation of the sanctity of life. Pro-life groups were angered by the legalisation of abortion, many believing that abortion was to destroy a sacred gift from God. Pro-choice groups, on the other hand, welcomed the reform, as they believed
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/vaksam/">Sam Vaknin's Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites The issue of abortion is emotionally loaded and this often makes for poor, not thoroughly thought out arguments. The questions: "Is abortion immoral" and "Is abortion a murder" are often confused. The pregnancy (and the resulting foetus) are discussed in terms normally reserved to natural catastrophes (force majeure, in legal lingo). At times, the embryo is compared to cancer:
is a basic contradiction involved in permitting abortion while at the same time prohibiting prenatal harm. (1) This contradiction can be stated in personhood terms and in terms of the woman's rights. I'd like to elucidate that contradiction and examine three solutions which rise out of current literature; I'd like then to propose a somewhat new, fourth solution. The Contradiction Stated in terms of personhood, the contradiction is this: abortion is permitted or condoned because the fetus (2)